If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Lost your password? Questions? Email admin @ theologyweb.com

TWeb had an OS update go bad and had to be restored to a previous state. We've lost two days worth of posts so you all get a do-over.

(edit, I wrote some partially and forgot to amend it... leaving one paragraph completely wrong!)

Originally Posted by Meh Gerbil

This is a logical fallacy known as the Exception Fallacy.

Actually, this is not an example of the exception fallacy. I'd be making that one if I took an exceptional case in order to make a general statement about a group. For example, if I used people with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Disorder, in order to make conclusions about women as a whole, or humans as a whole, then it'd be the exception fallacy. The classic case would be a man who sees one woman driving poorly and concludes women, in general, do so.

However, I wasn't. I was taking the rather simplistic statement that 'DNA is destiny' or 'XY = male', this statement admits no possibility of exceptions. Therefore if you can produce such an exception, then you've disproven the notion.

BTW, the only way your objection works is if significance is applied to physical characteristics.
The term 'testicles' in this case - which is exactly the argument someone who questions transgenderism is making.

I've only seen people who question transgenderism make one of two cases, either they argue that 'XY = male' or 'Gonads = male' or some variation like that. Or they proceed to argue specific cases as specious, usually when the case involves a man who in his thirties or forties decides to change gender.

If significance is not applied to physical attributes, then I'm not sure what leg anyone questioning transgenderism has to stand on. What else would the essential distinction then be, in order for them to point at Jenner and argue 'that is a man'?

Leonhard, you used the word "transgendered", can you define that for the sake of our discussion?

Actually, that was 'meh gerbil'. I used the term transgenderism, as all those people who not only are gender dysphoric but who attempt to live it out in one way or another, rather than living as the culturally accepted gender role they were assigned with at birth.

Actually, this is not an example of the exception fallacy. I'd be making that one if I took an exceptional case in order to make a general statement about a group. For example, if I used people with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Disorder, in order to make conclusions about women as a whole, or humans as a whole, then it'd be the exception fallacy. The classic case would be a man who sees one woman driving poorly and concludes women, in general, do so.

However, I wasn't. I was taking the rather simplistic statement that 'DNA is destiny' or 'XY = male', this statement admits no possibility of exceptions. Therefore if you can produce such an exception, then you've disproven the notion.

Actually, yes you manage to make the exception fallacy.
You invoke the exception and you then go on to make a general statement.

Here is the exception:

Originally Posted by Leonhard

There are women who are born with XY chromosomes, but with a complete insensitivity to androgens. It's rare but it occurs. They have labia, vaginas, wombs, breasts, they develop feminine curves when they hit puberty, and they develop exactly like other girls, and no one treats them differently.

Here are the general statements:

Originally Posted by Leonhard

The result is a spectrum...

and more importantly:

Originally Posted by Leonhard

I believe this is where gender becomes a social construction...

The word 'gender' is being interpreted based on the exceptions to the rule.
You are in fact working from a few exceptions to establishing the definition of a word.

Originally Posted by Leonhard

If significance is not applied to physical attributes, then I'm not sure what leg anyone questioning transgenderism has to stand on.

The case that the anti-transgender people make is that physical attributes are what define male and female.
In your examples you use exceptions (mixed sex persons) to try and attack that position.
You're attempting to argue via exception.

Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

I had to completely delete a post and re-make it because I did the exact same thing.
I think I'm trans-posting.

Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

...rather than living as the culturally accepted gender role they were assigned with at birth.

I'm not going to let you get away with this nonsense.

When a doctor declares the sex of the child he isn't assigning a 'role' to the child.
The doctor is observing the evidence and coming to a conclusion as to the sex of the child.
Also, it isn't a 'cultural' designation anymore than a woman can bear a child is 'cultural'.

The doctor is making a determination using the Scientific Method.

Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

In the context of defining what transgenderism is, that is the simplest way to do it. A person who lives as a different gender than what they were assigned at birth. Typically this is male or female. This is what you're assigned as at birth.

I didn't say you were randomly assigned your gender. It's very reasonable for the doctor to look at the genitals and pronounce whether it's a boy or a girl. I haven't been claiming anything contrary.

Actually, yes you manage to make the exception fallacy.
You invoke the exception and you then go on to make a general statement.

Originally Posted by Leonhard

There are women who are born with XY chromosomes, but with a complete insensitivity to androgens. It's rare but it occurs. They have labia, vaginas, wombs, breasts, they develop feminine curves when they hit puberty, and they develop exactly like other girls, and no one treats them differently.

Here are the general statements:

Originally Posted by Leonhard

The result is a spectrum...

Ah, now I see your point. My language doesn't make it clear that I've gone on to state my personal view on the matter. I intended the example to be used exclusively to cast doubt on any simplified 'gonads = male', 'XY = male' essentialism. It's not as clear as that, unfortunately. Though I'd love it to be.

Everything from 'The result is a spectrum...' should have been prefaced with 'In my opinion given our present state of knowledge,'

In the context of defining what transgenderism is, that is the simplest way to do it. A person who lives as a different gender than what they were assigned at birth. Typically this is male or female. This is what you're assigned as at birth.

The definition you present is heavily biased towards legitimizing transgenderism.
In the process of defining 'transgenderism' you're also defining gender as 'a cultural concept applied at birth'.

Let me ask you this: May I define transgenderism this way?Despite the evaluation of empirical evidence as quantified by a degreed scientific professional an individual may decide, based on nothing but pure whimsy, to decide to live out a fantasy life as the opposite gender.

You're trying to wrap your conclusions into the definition of the term.
Naughty, naughty boy.

Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101